When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I will be taking delivery of my 50th next month, I am tempted to have it dyno tested on day one and again at 3000 after the gentle running-in period. It would be great to have a few more from either camp do the same so that we can have a proper comparison.
There's so much to unpack here I hardly know where to begin! In no particular order: dyno testing involves running full throttle to redline. There goes the all-important gentle factory break-in! And on day one, no less! But then after so thoroughly blowing the factory off, to revert back to gentle low RPM driving for 3000 miles.... hmmm....
Then another dyno. What's that supposed to prove? The dyno voided the factory break-in, so results won't be relevant to that. But while running full-on for the dyno is exactly what's needed to seat the rings, a brief dyno run isn't really enough to do a proper job of that either.
What would make sense is to just take your car and break it in the right way: replace the Mobil-1 with ordinary motor oil, run the car as hard as you possibly can for at least the first couple hundred miles, change back to Mobil-1. When the car fails to explode (or experience whatever calamity supposedly is guaranteed to befall all those who fail to follow the instructions followed by whatever minority follows instructions printed in manuals given to only a fraction of owners- the ones who even bother reading it, that is) you'll know the factory hoo-haw is, uh, hoo-haw. (Not to be confused with Hee-Haw, which in this context is a perfectly respectable and eminently credible TV show.)
If you say so. But maybe you'll be kind enough to clarify, just which Porsche recommendations you're talking about? The ones they give to customers in the US? Or Brazil? While you're at it, maybe you can explain why the same car has to be driven differently depending on where its shipped?
(WTF? The stirring the pot emoticon was a one-off???@!! )
991s are not the same in every country it is sold in. Every country and even some US states have different emission, safety and legal warranty requirements resulting in many variations. Fuel composition is also greatly varied. In Brazil for one most cars run on ethanol.
You can't go wrong following the recommendations that came with your car.
There's so much to unpack here I hardly know where to begin! In no particular order: dyno testing involves running full throttle to redline. There goes the all-important gentle factory break-in! And on day one, no less! But then after so thoroughly blowing the factory off, to revert back to gentle low RPM driving for 3000 miles.... hmmm....
Then another dyno. What's that supposed to prove? The dyno voided the factory break-in, so results won't be relevant to that. But while running full-on for the dyno is exactly what's needed to seat the rings, a brief dyno run isn't really enough to do a proper job of that either.
What would make sense is to just take your car and break it in the right way: replace the Mobil-1 with ordinary motor oil, run the car as hard as you possibly can for at least the first couple hundred miles, change back to Mobil-1. When the car fails to explode (or experience whatever calamity supposedly is guaranteed to befall all those who fail to follow the instructions followed by whatever minority follows instructions printed in manuals given to only a fraction of owners- the ones who even bother reading it, that is) you'll know the factory hoo-haw is, uh, hoo-haw. (Not to be confused with Hee-Haw, which in this context is a perfectly respectable and eminently credible TV show.)
It's difficult to understand what you are actually saying when you rant & rave like that.
There's so much to unpack here I hardly know where to begin! In no particular order: dyno testing involves running full throttle to redline. There goes the all-important gentle factory break-in! And on day one, no less! But then after so thoroughly blowing the factory off, to revert back to gentle low RPM driving for 3000 miles.... hmmm....
Then another dyno. What's that supposed to prove? The dyno voided the factory break-in, so results won't be relevant to that. But while running full-on for the dyno is exactly what's needed to seat the rings, a brief dyno run isn't really enough to do a proper job of that either.
What would make sense is to just take your car and break it in the right way: replace the Mobil-1 with ordinary motor oil, run the car as hard as you possibly can for at least the first couple hundred miles, change back to Mobil-1. When the car fails to explode (or experience whatever calamity supposedly is guaranteed to befall all those who fail to follow the instructions followed by whatever minority follows instructions printed in manuals given to only a fraction of owners- the ones who even bother reading it, that is) you'll know the factory hoo-haw is, uh, hoo-haw. (Not to be confused with Hee-Haw, which in this context is a perfectly respectable and eminently credible TV show.)
Is it your face to foot style? Or your knots to fist style?
There's so much to unpack here I hardly know where to begin! In no particular order: dyno testing involves running full throttle to redline. There goes the all-important gentle factory break-in! And on day one, no less! But then after so thoroughly blowing the factory off, to revert back to gentle low RPM driving for 3000 miles.... hmmm....
Then another dyno. What's that supposed to prove? The dyno voided the factory break-in, so results won't be relevant to that. But while running full-on for the dyno is exactly what's needed to seat the rings, a brief dyno run isn't really enough to do a proper job of that either.
What would make sense is to just take your car and break it in the right way: replace the Mobil-1 with ordinary motor oil, run the car as hard as you possibly can for at least the first couple hundred miles, change back to Mobil-1. When the car fails to explode (or experience whatever calamity supposedly is guaranteed to befall all those who fail to follow the instructions followed by whatever minority follows instructions printed in manuals given to only a fraction of owners- the ones who even bother reading it, that is) you'll know the factory hoo-haw is, uh, hoo-haw. (Not to be confused with Hee-Haw, which in this context is a perfectly respectable and eminently credible TV show.)
Purchased my first 911 in 1970 and have owned a total of four over the years. I always took it easy, under 5K RPM, for the first couple hundred miles, but then drove them aggressively. Never had any problems with excessive oil consumption, nor any catastophic engine failures, at least when I owned them.
I totally understand the reasoning behind the baby-it break-in approach. I just happen to think that every single one of the reasons given falls apart upon close examination- and I have taken the time to address each and every one of these points, in detail. To date I'm unable to recall a single instance of anyone successfully rebutting any of these points. If a winning argument is a rant, so be it. Guilty as charged.
The only way to really know the correct answer is to perform what we call a "scientific test". To do this, we must have three groups:
- the folks that followed the factory recommendations
- the folks that jumped in their brand new car and redlined it every chance they got
- control group (who just drove)
You decide which camp you will be in. You don't have to tell us. In fact, please don't! That will mess it all up. Just keep it to yourself.
Got it?
OK, now, in 15 years the average 911 will have only 40K miles on it, so that won't prove anything. We need high mileage cars, so let's all agree that in 2060 we will update this thread with the results.
That is, if you haven't sold the car, turned it in at the end of the lease or failed to put 100K miles on it by then. Or died.
I totally understand the reasoning behind the baby-it break-in approach. I just happen to think that every single one of the reasons given falls apart upon close examination- and I have taken the time to address each and every one of these points, in detail. To date I'm unable to recall a single instance of anyone successfully rebutting any of these points. If a winning argument is a rant, so be it. Guilty as charged. Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O8EDuUA4qo
I must apologize for Wimp Lo (chuck911) he is an idiot.
Dude give it up, you lost this debate on every point. Get your self a 991 first than will talk.
06-04-2014, 08:03 AM
)
